JK i\s 

, H (o 


POPULAR. SO V ERE IG N T Y—T H E WILL OF THE MAJORITY AGAINST 

THE RULE OF A MINORITY. 



*) 


j 0 

3 , ' IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 28, 1858. 


Hie House being in the Committee of the Whole on the ! 
state of the Union— • 

Mr. HICKMAN said: 

Air. Chairman: I should not have sought the 
door at this time, but for the fact that silence 
would leave my views liable to an unpleasant mis-1 
construction. I was an early, earnest, and sin-1 
cere advocate of Mr. Buchanan’s election to the i 
Presidency cf the United States, believing that 
his elevation would largely promote the present 
peace and lasting welfare of my country. His j 
life had been a public one, and his character was | 
that of an educated statesman and a just man. I 
esteemed him as eminently worthy of the largest 
confidence and warmest regard of the American 
people, as I could not doubt his Administration j 
would alike reflect his wisdom, experience, and j 
nice appreciation of justice; and that under it the j 
rights of the people, of all the people, would be ; 
scrupulously regarded. I did not expect infalli-! 
bility in his management of public affairs, and do j 
not now expect it; and when I shall meet with J 
what I may regard as error, I trust to be pardoned j 
for the frankness with which I shall always pro¬ 
claim my opinions. 

Until I heard the annual message read, I had 
expected to be able to yield to its doctrines an 
honest and decided support; but from its Kansas 
policy I must strongly dissent. I am unable to 
give it my support. I regret exceedingly the tend- i 
ency of the Executive recommendation, which, 
to my mind, is to place the President in a posi¬ 
tion of antagonism to the majority in Kansas. It j 
leads to an issue between poweron the one hand, | 
and the people on the other. In such a case, 1 I 
never can hesitate in determining whose cause I j 
•shall espouse, or what verdict I ought to render, i 
l am not unmindful of the fact that the former is 
quite as likely to triumph with the wrong as the j 
latter with the right; and that the ambitious may 
well hesitate when resolves on success are to de¬ 
cide for whom to do battle. The great influence I 
of executive patronage; the full extent of execu¬ 
tive power in this country is but feebly compre-j 
bended. We are apt to underrate it vastly. If 
unscrupulously exercised, it becomes a crushing 1 


despotism, as indefensible as that controlled by 
the greatest of tyrants—combinations can seldom 
resist it, individuals never. But these considera¬ 
tions, clearly as-they have presented themselves 
to my mind, can never induce me to espouse a 
political heresy. 

But the great danger surrounding our institu¬ 
tions docs not so much arise from a want of pub- 
! lie virtue as general intelligence. Few outside of 
public life watch narrowly the conduct of their 
public servants, and fewer still are sufficiently 
conversant with the machinery of Government 
clearly to comprehend the bearing of particular 
acts. If it were otherwise, high officers of Gov¬ 
ernment would be less powerful for evil, and pub¬ 
lic rights more practically defensible. If, therefore, 
at any time, resistance to a gross and unpardon¬ 
able outrage upon an admitted principle, shall 
prove unavailing, let not the offense, on that ac¬ 
count, be baptized and sanctified; let if. rather be 
an evidence of the truth of my declaration, and a 
warning to those who are unwilling to part with 
the sovereignty of the citizen. 

My opposition to the President’s treatment of 
Kansas affairs does not arise from hostility to 
slavery; it stands upon a foundation, the strength 
of which will be more generally admitted. I rest 
my resistance upon the violations of declared prin¬ 
ciples, of solemn pledges, and the guarantees to 
the nation. To ask me to sanction them, witli 
my views, is to insult me by suspicions of my 
integrity. Others may act differently, it is not 
my province to judge them. 

“ I may stand'alone, 

But would not change my free thoughts for a throne.” 

I am not blind to the fact that a very different 
motive will be assigned for my action. I have 
too-bften seen it attributed to others, not to anti¬ 
cipate it in my own case. But it has become a 
•stale cry, and, I think, must soon prove a barren 
one. If differing from my southern friends on 
any point which immediately or remotely affects 
the interests of slavery must subject me to anath¬ 
ema, so be it; I must bear up under it; I cannot 
deny my convictions that I may receive a chari¬ 
table judgment. 



/V'V 


s. 

















-.--------— 

I do not oppose slavery where it legally exists. 
It is there a matter between the muster and the 
slave; it concerns them alone; and 1 will not inter¬ 
fere with it or them. I yield a ready allegiance 
to our common Constitution, and will support all 
the laws made under it as long as they remain in 
force, to whatever subject they may relate, or 
whatever burdens they may impose upon me. 
But when any man, or body of men, seek to plant 
that institution or any other on my soil, or where 

I have the legal right to speak, I will then exer¬ 
cise the prerogative of a freeman. And when 
this is attempted by force or by fraud, when it is 
manifested in an utter disregard and profound 
contempt for the popular will, that, of itself, will 
induce me to resist it to the last. 

This is a law to me — and there is no other sound 
law of liberty — to exercise all my rights in their 
fullness, and to grant the same measure of power 
to my neighbor. The application of this rule of 
action is not only good for individuals, but equally 
so for communities and States. It is a golden 
rule; it is a pure constitutional rule. The North 
must regard all the rights of the South, and the 
South must regard all the rights of the North—in j 
the States and in the Territories — throughout the j 
broad land — for neither wears a panoply against 
the assaults of the other. There are two classes 
of persons, however, who, in a marked manner, 
interfere with this course of conduct. They are 
those who deny and those who grant all demands 
made, whether just or unjust. Extremists in the 
South, judging all northern men tobeof iheformer 
class, designate them as enemies and Abolition¬ 
ists; and certain northern politicians looking upon 
a few northern Democrats as a type of the whole, 
have declared Democracy to be the ally of sla¬ 
very. Both cannot be right, and believe that 
they are equally wrong. Denying, as I do, the 
charge that Democracy has entered into a league 
with slavery, I am yet willing to admit, as I have 
said, the existence of a few northern confederates 
with it. I do not believe them able to exercise 
much power, whatever their disposition. If it 
shall prove otherwise in their action upon the 
present question, I must leave to them the re¬ 
sponsibilities of a course destructive of the effect¬ 
ive force of our party organization. 

I think 1 may, with great truth, say that the 
enactment of the law organizing the Territories 
of Kansas and Nebraska, including the repeal of 
the Missouri compromise, was not, originally, a 
popular movement at the North. It was regarded 
with suspicion, and believed to be impolitic if not 
unjust. Mr. Buchanan himself, by expressing the 
wish, in his Reading letter, that that line should 
be extended to the Pacific ocean, gave to the com¬ 
promise a sanctity or popularity additional to that 
derived from thirty-four years’ acquiescence; and 
when its contemplated destruction was announced, 
it was received with great astonishment and deep 
regret. It was honestly believed, by very many, 
to be a movement to advance the peculiar interests 
of the South at the expense of those for whose 
benefit the territory north of the line had been 
dedicated to freedom. The doctrine of popular 
sovereignty by which it was accompanied, made 
it at first but tolerable, though, eventually, pal¬ 
atable. Could the future history of Kansas have 
then been read, as it has since transpired to this 
moment; the repeated frauds and usurpations 

1 practiced and imposed upon her people; her ago- 
; nizingand fruitless cries for justice; the cruel and 
crushing sympathy of high Federal officers with 
her oppressors; her appeal for free institutions 
' derided by ruffians, and slavery fastened upon her 
in bold defiance of her rights; could all this have 
been foreseen, the northern advocate of that legis¬ 
lation could not have breasted for a single mo¬ 
ment the withering tornado such wrongs would 
havcjpaised against him. These unjust conse¬ 
quences,not naturally flowingfrom the legislation 
j spoken of, have now resulted; and if they would 
not have been tolerated then, why should they 
be now? Have we an overplus of political power 
i which should induce us to carry so exhausting a 
burden with patience? Once taken up by the 
; party they would cling to it like the Man of the 
Mountain to the back of the sailor, choking it and 
sinking it to the earth. It is too soon for us to 
forget what overpowering strength we brought 
to the polls in 1852, and the means—yes, sir, the 
'means—by which it was recklessly frittered away 
before 1856. 

Mr. Chairman, I am upon a point I feel deep- 
i ly, and if I shall express myself with warmth 
and decision I must be pardoned. As long as 
I am capable of appreciating truth, I can never 
lend myself to the attempt now being made, with 
; high sanctions, to undermine the foundation upon 
! which the modern territorial legislation rests, and 
to falsify pledges upon the faith of which the last 
presidential election was accomplished. The vital 
principle, the soul of the Nebraska-Kansas bill, is 
to be blasted. The majority are not necessarily to 
rule. If I can read recent events at all, I learn so 
much from them. Let the people understand this; 
teach them the whole truth, and then hear their 
response. Think you the mighty millions of the 
North, the East, and the West will be quieted as 
children by baubles? Will they allow legislation 
to be construed one way to-day, and enforced a 
different way to-morrow? In short, will they 
; submit always to stake upon a game where they 
never can win ? If they are so miserably made 

1 up, so destitute of real manhood, they are truly 
i only fit to be the “ white slaves” of whom we 
! have occasionally heard, and from my soul I pity 
them. The name of freeman fits them not, but 
hangs upon them, 

- “ like a sflant’s robe 

Upon a dwarfish thief.” 

My course is my own; others are not answer- 
able for it; and I would not implicate them in my 
action if I could. But I will resist every attempt, 
no matter from what quarter it may come, to in¬ 
flict adespotism upon the people of Kansas, when 
the law guaranties them liberty, or to impinge 
upon the promises the Democracy took upon them¬ 
selves to make in the last presidential campaign. 

The recommendation in the message goes out 
as “ a forlorn hope” against what has heretofore 
b^en supposed to be the strongly intrenched doc¬ 
trine of popular sovereignty. What will the 
country do, is the question. Will it defend this 
great principle in the hour of its severe trial? Or 
will it allow the right of self-government to be suc¬ 
cessfully assaulted? Has it ah-eady become an 
obsolete, a worn-out thing ? But two years ago I 
expressed the opinion that those most prominently 
instrumental in causing the Democratic party to 
be pledged to maintain the doctrine of popular 


















sovereignty, in the organization of our Territories, 
would deeply regret it. I never doubted that it 
would operate against the growth of the South. 
On the 19th of March, 1856, when insisting upon 
an investigation into alleged election frauds in 
Kansas, 1 had occasion to use these words: 

‘-.‘Sir, the supporters of that bill [the Nebraska-Kansas 
bill] have proclaimed to the nation that the Territories of 
the United States are to constitute ‘ a fair field,’ and that 
there is to be ‘a free fight’ there, between the Nortli and 
the South, to decide whether slavery or freedom shall rule 
them. If the energy, the enterprise, the active modes of life, 
the available capital, and the numbers of the North, shall 
not be able to compete successfully with their opposites in 
the South, and secure freedom to the Territories, then 1 will 
admit that there Is a vitality and a power in slavery which 
we of the North have never dreamed of. In my opinion, the 
Representatives of the South in the Thirty-Third Congress 
‘ have sown the fire, and they will gather fire into their own 
garners.’ ” 

The prediction is fulfilled; for now, like Pyrene, 
the Iberian princess, they fly in fear from their own 
child; it is a serpent, and pursues them. The day ( 
of repentance has come upon them much sooner 
than I anticipated. Instead of decades, it has 
required but brief months to inculcate the lesson 
which should never be forgotten, that weakness 
cannotlong triumph over strength, norminorities, 
in this free land, trample down majorities. If 
what we have esteemed the great truths of repub¬ 
lican government are not a sheer lie, then squatter 
sovereignty, adequately protected, will give the 
virgin lands of our Confederacy to the free white 
man, and not the negro slave. This is now seen, 
and sovereignty is not to be protected; it is to be i 
crushed out; by unwarrantable, illegal interfer- j 
ence it is to be crushed out; and the hitherto pliant | 
North is expected to acquiesce. If it submits, be 
it so. I will, never! no, never! 

A southern writer in De Bow’s Weekly Press 
exhibits in a striking light the imperative neces-; 
sity resting upon the South to make Kansas a 
slave State. It is declared to be the necessity aris- j 
ing from self-preservation, and such as originates 
the highest law. I read an extract from the arti-! 
cle referred to, of the date of January 16, 1858: 

“ The surrender of Kansas to the operation of the ma¬ 
jority rule, under the cry of popular sovereignty in the | 
Territories, without constitutional warrant, and her absorp- i 
tion by the non-slaveholding power of the country, would ! 
make the evil of the times no longer prospective, but in¬ 
stant and imminent. By the fact of this surrender, the 
South would become subordinant, and the North predom¬ 
inant, in the Union. Never again, in the Union, could the 
equilibrium of State sovereign representation between the 
South and the North be either maintained in or restored to 
the Senate. Never again, in the Union, could the equality 
of the South with the North be either maintained in or re¬ 
stored to the House of Representatives. No further barrier 
could be constructed between either the aggressive territorial 
or political rapacity of the North, and the weakened and di- I 
minished South. No other bulwark could be raised to guard | 
either the moral or social integrity of the South against the j 
disrupting and destructive legal and social systems of the j 
North. The South, like Hector bound to the car of Achil 
les, would soon be dragged by the triumphant North around 
a ruined possession, quickly to be followed by the erasive , 
plowshare of the invading conqueror. 

“ The loss of Kansas to the South would involve the loss 
of Missouri; and the loss of Missouri would destroy the | 
moral as well as political prestige of the South, and invade j 
the integrity of their institutions. The moral prestige of i 
States, like that of individuals, once destroyed, no earthly . 
power can restore; and the integrity of State establish¬ 
ments, like the chastity of woman, once subjected to inva- J 
sion, continues at the will of the despoiler. With aboli- 
tionized Iowa stretching along the northern boundary of 
Missouri, and abolilionized Kansas covering her western 
boundary, whilst there poured into her bosom, through Iowa j 
and Kansas, from the more inhospitable lake and northern [ 


Atlantic regions, a continuous stream of agrarian radicals 
of any and all parties in those regions, alike determined to 
obtain control of her government, and to assert the rule of 
the majority in the line of emancipation, slave property in 
Missouri would become too precarious in its tenure to be 
holden, and the necessity for its sale or removal would at 
once arise. It may be confidently asserted that, under these 
circumstances, in five years Missouri would cease to be a 
slaveholding State. Already, in view of the anticipated re- 
| suit, Abolition journals have been started in Missouri, and 
candidates for Congress have unfurled the banner of emau- 
| cipation.” 

But, Mr. Chairman, I wish to be more partic¬ 
ular and precise in my objections to that part of 
the President’s message to which I have made 
reference, and to the admission of Kansas into 
the Union on the Lecompton constitution. They 
arise— 

First. From the antagonism of that policy and 
measure to what has been called the great repub¬ 
lican principle of the Nebraska-Kansas bill; and 

Second. From the attempts making to violate 
the plighted faith of the Democratic party. 

“ The true in tent and meaning” of the act organ¬ 
izing the Territory of Kansas, is declared to be 
“ to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form 
and regulate their domestic institutions in their 
own way.” This language would seem too un¬ 
equivocal to be overcome by the most abstruse 
diplomatist, or the most adroit hair-splitting pol¬ 
itician. No doubt, I suggest, is allowed to remain 
as to “ the true intent and meaning” of the enact¬ 
ment. It was to give full, perfect, unrestricted 
sovereignty to the people of Kansas. It is this 
right, thus clearly given to them, the inhabitants 
of the Territory now claim; nothing more, noth¬ 
ing less. 

But I understand the President to say that they 
are careless about all questions to be settled by 
their fundamental law, except the single one of 
negro slavery. Who conferred upon this officer 
the authority to speak so confidently for the peo¬ 
ple of Kansas? Surely Congress never did; for 
they have, by an unrepealed law, vested all pow¬ 
er in the people alone; and if the people have 
intrusted him with an agency, it is proper he 
should show his warrant. This, most unfortu¬ 
nately, and of course most unintentionally, tends 
to indorse and sustain that organized, system¬ 
atic attempt, long insisted upon and persevered 
in, to stifle the popular voice in the Territory, and 
to cast its government into the hands of those 
having no shadow of right to exercise it. Free 
government is not to be allowed, because the 
people will not consult the wishes of the Platte 
district, nor accept institutions attempted to be 
forced on them from abroad. The language of 
the President is somewhat peculiar, and, to my 
mind, singularly unsound. He says: 

“The convention were not bound by its terms [the terms 
of the Nebraska-Kansas bill] to submit any other portion 
of the instrument [the constitution] to an election, except 
that which relates to the ‘domestic institution’ of sla¬ 
very. This will be rendered clear by a simple reference to 
its language. It was c not to legislate slavery into any Ter¬ 
ritory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the 
people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their 
domestic institutions in their own way.’ According to the 
plain construction of the sentence, the words ‘ domestic in¬ 
stitutions’ have a direct, as they have an appropriate refer¬ 
ence to slavery. ‘ Domestic institutions’ are limited to the 
family. The relation between master and slave, and a few 
others, are ‘ domestic institutions,’ and are entirely distinct 
from institutions of a political character. Besides, there 
was no question then before Congress, nor indeed has there 
since been any serious question before the people of Kan- 

















4 


sas or tli o country, except that which relates to the ‘domes- | 
tie institution’ of slavery.” 

All the obligations which “ rested on the Le- 
compton convention to submit their constitution 
to an election” he assumes to be derived from the 
act of Congress. He contends that “ domestic 
institutions,” being synonymous with slavery, it 
is therefore not required to submit any other mat¬ 
ter to the popular decision. Let us test this re¬ 
markable view by carrying it to its consequences, j 
If “ domestic institutions” mean merely slavery, j 
then it is clear that the power given to the people ' 
“ to form and regulate their domestic institutions j 
in their own way,” confers only the power “ to i 
form and regulate” slavery “ in their own way. ” j 
But this conclusion would prove too great an ab-1 
surdity for its advocates to profit by. The policy | 
of the Government with reference to slavery in j 
the Territories, was intended to be permanently | 
settled by the Nebraska-Kansas bill, giving to the J 
people thereof complete sovereignty over all their 
institutions. All power to legislate on the sub¬ 
ject of slavery was denied to Congress and given j 
to the people of the Territory. Congress declared ( 
it was— 

“ The true intent and meaning of that act not to legislate 
slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it there¬ 
from, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form 
and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way.” j 

As I read it, and as the country has thu3 far' 
interpreted it, slavery was to be left to the determ¬ 
ination of the people of the Territory just as all 
the rest of their domestic institutions. Indeed the 
whole argument for the legislation referred to, 
proceeded upon that ground. They, the people, 
were to have their institutions in their own way 
— all their institutions. Their power was not 
large or unlimited with regard to one, and small 
or limited with regard to another; it was equal 
with respect to all. I need scarcely contend that 
if their will is to govern, it becomes necessary to ; 
ascertain what it is. As I look upon it, there¬ 
fore, the admission that the question of slavery 
should be submitted to a vote of the people for 
the purpose of ascertaining their wishes touching 
that institution, carries with it the further admis¬ 
sion that all their other institutions should be sub¬ 
jected to the same test. The error arises from 
shutting out of view the fact that the territorial 
legislation of 1854 intended to establish a govern-! 
mental policy with respect to slavery; that it was 
designed to leave that “ domestic institution” just 
where all other “ domestic institutions” were left j 
—within the popular control. That by using the 
words “ slavery’’and “ domestic institutions” in 
the same sentence, Congress did not intend they | 
should be regarded as synonymous, but as a mem¬ 
ber and a family. Slavery is a domestic institu¬ 
tion, not domestic institutions; it is singular, not 
plural; it is one, not many. To adopt this fault 
of interpretation, would be to do not only great, 
and perhaps irretrievable injury to the people of 
Kansas, but to those of every Territory hereafter 
to be organized. 

Is it not too plain that popular sovereignty, so 
much extolled in the Thirty-Third Congress, and 
so highly recommended in the last presidential 
contest, as the sound principle upon which our 
Territories were thenceforth to be organized and 
governed—which was declared as giving all power 
into the hands of the people—is to be sweated down ' 


to the very moderate dimensions of a privilege to 
say whether they will hold a negro in bonds or 
not? No opinion can be expressed as to the or¬ 
ganization of the legislative, executive, or judicial 
branches of the government; none of the consti¬ 
tutional safeguards afforded to life and liberty are 
of any importance to the citizen. He may not 
speak as to them; his whole voice is to be kept 
for his yea or nay on negro slavery. This is Tom 
Thumb sovereignty, or sovereignty in a nut-shell. 

The case is even worse than I have exhibited 
it. Nothing has been submitted for popular de¬ 
termination. Slavery could not be voted down 
by voting the “ constitution with no slavery,” 
when the instrument expressly declares that, 
under such vote, “ the right of property in slaves 
now in the Territory shall in no manner be inter¬ 
fered with.” That right of property carries with 
it the increase of those slaves as completely as if 
born in South Carolina; and if that right “ shall 
not be interfered with ,” slavery must continue. I 
have never before been taught that that is a free 
State in which the negro and his issue are to be 
holden as slaves, and where the property in slaves 
“ shall not be interfered with. ” The right of the 
people “ to form and regulate their domestic insti¬ 
tutions in their own way,” now means simply “to 
form and regulate ” slavery, provided they “form ” 
it in a State, and do not “regulate” it out. This 
I would designate as sovereignty invisible. 

This solemn mockery of a guarantied right is 
to be tolerated; not only tolerated, but encour¬ 
aged and confirmed by the action of the present 
Congress, because the convention which perpe¬ 
trated the enormity, represented, as I am told, the 
sovereignty of the people. No such reason exists, 

I would as soon recognize a bastard as a lawful 
heir, as the Lecompton convention to be the off¬ 
spring of the people of Kansas. The fact that 
others may have recognized it as a legal body, im¬ 
poses no obligation upon me to force myself to the 
same unwise conclusion. It is one ofthe fruits of a 
well-digested fraud concocted in the fall of 1854,and 
persevered in until the present moment; a fraud 
by which slavery was to be forced into the State 
when formed, without respect to the sentiment 
of the people. The very purpose ofthe fraud was 
to override the will of the people; to substitute the 
action of a minority for the rule of the majority. 
In organizing the Territory under the Nebraska- 
Kansas act, the first thing manifested was an anti¬ 
republican movement, subversive of the principles 
of the act, and those concerned in it took as much 
trouble to hide the facts as Periander did to con¬ 
ceal his grave, and committed as many crimes in 
doing so. The ballot-box gave no response to 
the resolves or wishes of the residents; it pointed 
only to treasonable acts striking at the very foun¬ 
dation of our institutions. Ruffianism has held 
uninterrupted sway there. It made legislators, 
who made a convention, which made a constitu¬ 
tion. The great grandchild bears most unmis¬ 
takable evidence of its parentage, and it would 
indeed be strange if it did not subvert the prin- 
I ciple that the people are free “ to form and regu¬ 
late their domestic institutions in their own way. ’ ’ 

“ For he that once hath missed the right way, 

The further he doth go the further lie doth stray.” 

I am unwilling to marshal proofs to support the 
position here assumed, as the whole living his¬ 
tory cf Kansas attests its strength. 






















5 


Sir, how docs it happen that no man has yet 
been found with Democracy sound enough to bear 
up against the air of Kansas? Four Governors 
have been appointed in the space of about thirty 
months, from among the wisest and best of our 
party, and now the office is again vacant. How 
comes this? It finds its solution in the fact that 
“ Democracy is morality,” and unable to coun¬ 
tenance so gross and palpable a usurpation as has 
always existed there. Those four high officers 
have all returned to us, speaking the same lan¬ 
guage, uttering the same words—that sovereignty 
is crushed out there. And what answer is made 
to this ? A southern paper gives it, in declaring 
they are to be marked—their ears cut and tails 
split; they are to be read out. Take care, sir, 
that you do not read out the whole North. In 
the great political contest of 1856, how our ener¬ 
gies were taxed to the utmost! Every vote was 
of importance—of vast importance—not to the 
North merely, but to the South—ay, to the South! 
How they trembled there ! “Sectionalism” they 
thought would prevail. Looking back upon 
that fearful struggle, may we not well pause long 
enough to inquire what will probaly be the result 
of future battles, when soldiers are so unceremo¬ 
niously shot, at a time when they can be so illy 
spared ? 

I have not forgotten the almost impenetrable 
gloom which overhung my own State, and con¬ 
sequently the whole country, during the fierce 
conflict to which I have alluded. It was then that 
the persuasive voice of one who now fills a place 
near the person of the President was heard in our 
midst, proclaiming the right of Kansas to be self- 
governed, and expressing his determination, as a 
son of the South, to carry out the will of her peo¬ 
ple. His present high position was bestowed 
upon him, doubtless, in consequence of the in¬ 
fluence it was his fortune then to exercise. I fear 
his friends who, at that time, listened to him with 
so much true pleasure, were not prepared for the 
intelligence which just before our meeting flashed 
along the telegraphic wires, that the President and 
his Cabinet were a unit in favor of the admission 
of Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton 
constitution. But their greatest regret will, per¬ 
haps, be that they have forfeited the favorable re¬ 
gard of one in whose behalf they have taken so 
strong an interest, for the reason that they learned 
too well the salutary lessons he inculcated. 

I cannot follow this digression further, although 
not unprofitable, but must resume my argument. 
I deny that the Lecompton convention represented 
the sovereignty of the people, for another reason. 
In the election of its members, a majority of those 
really entitled to vote were completely disfran¬ 
chised. It was thus made to be the representative 
of a minority merely. In the language of Gov¬ 
ernor Walker, “ it had vital, not technical, defects 
in the very substance of its organization under 
the territorial law. ” Out of thirty-four counties 
composing election districts, and in which it was 
requisite a census should be taken and voters re¬ 
gistered by officers appointed by the Legislature 
itself, nineteen had no census taken and no rep¬ 
resentation assigned them, and fifteen had no re¬ 
gistry of voters, and could not, therefore, vote at 
all. The nineteen counties were a majority of all 
the counties, and were unrepresented; the fifteen 
counties had more votes than were given to all 


the delegates who signed the constitution, and 
could not cast a single vote. How, then, can it 
be said that this was a convention of delegates of 
the people; and, as such, entitled to speak for 
them, act for them, and bind them ? Under such 
circumstances, are a people left “ free to form and 
regulate their domestic institutions in their own 
way?” , 

A further objection exists to the composition of 
this convention. Its members not only did not 
represent a majority, but those who controlled its 
action procured their election by a fraud. The del¬ 
egates from Douglas county, including the presi¬ 
dent of the convention, suspected of a design to 
fasten a constitution upon the people without sub¬ 
mitting it to them for their acceptance or rejection, 
issued the following card: 

“ To the Democratic Voters of Douglas County : 

“ It having been stated by that Abolition newspaper, the 
Herald of Freedom, and by some disaffected bogus Demo¬ 
crats, who have got up an independent ticket, for the pur¬ 
pose of securing the vote of the Black Republicans, that the 
regular nominees of the Democratic convention were op¬ 
posed to submitting the constitution to the people, we, the 
candidates of the Democratic party, submit the following 
resolutions, which were adopted by the Democratic conven¬ 
tion which placed us in nomination, and which we fully 
and heartily indorse, as a complete refutation of the slanders 
above referred to. 

. 1011 ?? Calhoun, A. W. Jones, 

W. S. Wells, II. Butcher, 

L. S. Eolling, John M. Wallace, 

Wm. T. Spicely, L. A. Prather. 

“Lecompton, Kansas Territory, June 13, 1857.” 

“ Resolved, That we will support no man as a delegate to 
the constitutional convention, whose duties it will be to 
frame the constitution of the future State of Kansas and to 
mold the political institutions under which we, as a people, 
are to live, unless he pledges himself fully, freely, and with - 
out reservation, to use every honorable means to submit the 
same to every bona fide actual citizen of Kansas, at the 
proper time for the vote being taken upon the adoption by 
the people, in order that the said constitution may be adopted 
or rejected by the actual settlers in this Territory, as the ma¬ 
jority of the voters shall decide.” 

These men, by this act of baseness, not only 
accomplished their election, but placed the con¬ 
vention within their own control. Am I to be 
taught that our institutions can only be supported 
by public virtue, and then asked to defend such 
a proceeding as I have indicated, upon the ground 
that it is sovereign, republican, and binding upon 
the citizen ? This is felon sovereignty. 

The injustice of the course pursued towards the 
people of Kansas is very distinct. They are by 
law empowered to form their institutions in their « 
own way; and yet the supporters of the Lecomp- 
ton convention require them to adopt particular 
forms to make known that will, not because the 
bona fule settlers approve of them, but because 
their supporters approve of them. If one tenth 
maintain the legislation originating the constitu¬ 
tion, and nine tenths repudiate and condemn it, 
can it be said the instrument is the offspring of 
sovereignty? But suppose every votable inhab¬ 
itant had sanctioned the call of a convention, and 
yet a large majority should condemn the work 
of such a body when finished: would not a plain, 
common-sense interpretation of the organic act 
require us to reject it? The proposition is too 
plain for argument. I will merely inquire what 
the sentiment of the people is; and when I learn 
that, by employing such means as are likely to 
reveal it, I will aid it, whether I can sanction their 
conclusions or not. Anything else would fall 














6 


short of giving a popular government; it would be 
but a government of force or fraud. 

I deeply regret that those who support the Le- 
compton constitution have not rested that support 
upon a principle, but upon expediency. As I read 
the message of the President, he sanctions it in 
order that the country may get rid of the excite¬ 
ment which has so long prevailed on the subject. 
What excitement, pray ? That which has been 
caused by repeated acts of violence, smothering 
the popular will, and gagging the popular voice. 
Its language is: 

“ When once admitted into the Union, whether with or 
without slavery, the excitement beyond her own limits will 
speedily pass away, and she will then, for the first time, be 
left, as she ought to have been long since, to manage her 
own affairs in her own way. If her constitution on the sub¬ 
ject of slavery, or on any other subject, be displeasing to a 
majority of the people, no human power can prevent them 
from changing it within a brief period.” 

In my judgment aprinciple should never be sac¬ 
rificed to expediency. But I deny the expediency 
of the course recommended, and" the argument to 
sustain it is, to my mind, unfortunate. The Presi¬ 
dent says: “ if her constitution on the subject of 
slavery, or on any other subject, be displeasing 
to a majority of the people, no human power can 
prevent them from changing it within a brief 
period.” The organic act promises the people 
that they may “form and regulate their domestic 
institutions in their own way;” now they are told 
they should take a fundamental law, in the making 
of which they had no part, and of which they 
totally disapprove, because “ no human power 
can prevent them from changing it within a brief 
period.” Now, at the time they seek admission 
into the Union, oppression forces institutions up¬ 
on them; but when admitted, that hand will be 
withdrawn and they will regain their rights. 
This is sovereignty with suspended animation. 

In opposition to the proposed policy of forcing 
upon the people what they do not want, I place 
the Democratic doctrine of popular sovereignty, 
which will give to the people what they do want. 
The President requires us to take a new but ragged 
garment, and attempts to comfort us by saying 
it can be patched and made sound. I will never 
traffic in goods which are defective, and will not 
wear, if I know it, notwithstanding I may buy, 
others if I do not like them. I will never barter 
truths for errors, knowing that I may support the 
latter by sophistries. I believe, with Milton, 
that— 

“Truth is strong! Next to the Almighty, she needs no 
policies, no stratagems, no licensings to make her victo¬ 
rious.” 

And I will follow her wherever she may lead. 
If from power, then I am against power. If from 
the mass, then I am against the mass. If from 
my friends, then I am against my friends. If into 
solitude and the desert, I will make her my com¬ 
panion forever. 

The rules of the House deny me the time to 
pursue this branch of my argument further, how¬ 
ever much I may desire to do so. I shall now 
contend that, to adopt the course recommended by 
the President to Congress to support the action of 
the Lecompton convention, would be to violate the 
manifold and manifest pledges of the Democratic 
party touching the doctrine of popular sover¬ 
eignty in the Territories. 

The main or principal ground taken by the Re- 


i publican party has been, that the Democracy were 
| not to be trusted on questions involving the in¬ 
terests of slavery, and that their management of 
Kansas affairs afforded the sustaining proof. It 
will not do for us to say that it. produced no effect 
upon the public mind. We were constrained to 
admit the policy, although we denied the justice 
of the appeal. In Pennsylvania, within sight of 
Wheatland, the home of the present Chief Magis¬ 
trate, an impression had been made against us. 
The reply was ready and potent, that Mr. Bu¬ 
chanan, having favored the extension of the Mis¬ 
souri compromise to the Pacific, had favored the 
exclusion of slavery from the territory north of 
that line, including Kansas; that he was a north¬ 
ern man, having, as such, sympathies with the 
white laborer, and likely, for that reason, to see 
full justice done him; that he had proved himself 
honest, and as the resolves of his party bound him 
to the doctrine of popular sovereignty, and the 
sentiment in Kansas was most unmistakably for 
a free State, there could be no doubt he would see 
the organic act fully and impartially carried out, 
and slavery repressed. Confidence was reestab¬ 
lished and a Democratic victory achieved. If the 
recent message could have been then anticipated, 
I do not hesitate to express my conviction that 
Pennsylvania would have cast an immense ma¬ 
jority of her votes against him. His old congres¬ 
sional district—a part of which I have the honor 
to represent—I am satisfied would have spoken in 
a very different voice. You know but little of the 
present feeling in Pennsylvania if you suppose 
her sons can be induced to support the views of 
the Executive regarding the Lecompton conven¬ 
tion. There is an accusation of bad faith, and I 
confess I have felt myself unable to answer it, and 
consequently unwilling to attempt it. 

It was not alone in Pennsylvania our party 
committed itself to a faithful expression of the pop¬ 
ular wish in Kansas. North and South, through¬ 
out the States, it was pledged in the most solemn 
terms to the same thing. There was no conflict 
of political opinion in the different sections of the 
Union; all acknowledged the obligation of the 
principle of the Nebraska-Kansas bill, and all ex¬ 
pressed their unfaltering determination to defend 
the sovereign will of the people, whether its ex¬ 
pression was for freedom or slavery. That these 
declarations were honestly made I do not doubt; 
the Cincinnati platform had then but recently been 
constructed, and all seemed to fully understand 
it. The resolution, to which I more especially 
refer, was demanded by the South, and fully ac¬ 
cepted by the North. This demand was occa¬ 
sioned, doubtless, by a fear of the former that the 
latter was more or less unfriendly to the new 
territorial legislation. The principle of this legis¬ 
lation was hence reasserted and embodied, and 
became the bond of Democratic fellowship. It is 
too plain for misconstruction even now: 

“ Resolved, That we recognize the right of the people of 
all the Territories, including Kansas find Nebraska, acting 
through the legally and fairly-expressed will of a majority 
of actual residents, and whenever the number of their in¬ 
habitants justifies it, to form a constitution, with or without 
domestic slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon 
terms of perfect equality with the other States.” 

It did not speak for Kansas merely but for “ all 
the Territories.” “ The people of all the Terri¬ 
tories, including Kansas and Nebraska, acting 
through the legally and fairly-expressed will of 












7 


a majority of actual residents” are to form consti¬ 
tutions. And here, let me observe, that in no 
other way are constitutions to be formed. The 
resolution follows the act of Congress in indica¬ 
ting the mode in which constitutions are to be 
formed, namely, by “ the people acting through 
the legally and fairly-expressed will of a major¬ 
ity of actual residents.” It was thus emphati- 
eally’announced that a constitution could not be 
given to Kansas in any but the one way. Again, 

I say, the party was trusted, and it triumphed. 

The inaugural address of the new President 
evinced a clear comprehension of the grounds 
upon which his election had been accomplished, 
and a determination to observe the most perfect 
good faith. In speaking of the Territories its lan¬ 
guage was: 

“ It is the imperative and indispensable duty of the Gov¬ 
ernment of the United States to secure to every resident 
inhabitant the free and independent expression of his opin¬ 
ion by his vote. This sacred right of each individual must 
be preserved!” 

This is not a passage framed for the purpose 
of ambiguity; it removes all doubt, if any ex¬ 
isted before, as to the conviction of the speaker, 
that “ the free and independent expression of his 
opinion by his vote” must be secured “ to every 
resident” of Kansas, at all times. Here was a 
conclusion reached; and we find the President, 
afterwards, consistently and persistently carrying 
it out. Be it remembered “ the resident” of Kan¬ 
sas was to be secured in the “ free and independ¬ 
ent expression of his opinion by his vote.” The 
President of the United States had so determined; 
and with this purpose fixed, he insisted upon the 
Hon. Robert j. Walker accepting from him the 
appointment of Governor of Kansas, to effectu¬ 
ate it. The reason for selecting the individual 
named, is to be found in the fact that there was a 
perfect agreement of the two as to the course to 
be pursued. This is most evident from the let¬ 
ter of Governor Walker accepting the appoint¬ 
ment, and from the instructions issued to him. 
In the letter alluded to Governor Walker says: 

u I understand that you and your Cabinet cordially concur 
in the opinion expressed Uy me, that the actual bona fide 
residents of the Territory of Kansas, by a fair and regular 
vote, unaffected by fraud or violence, must be permitted, in 
adopting their State constitution, to decide for themselves 
what shall be their socitf institutions. This is the great 
fundamental principle of the act of Congress organizing that 
Territory, affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United 
States, and is in accordance with the views uniformly ex¬ 
pressed by me throughout my public career. I contemplate 
a peaceful solution of this question by an appeal to the 
intelligence and patriotism of the people of Kansas, who 
should all participate fully and freely in this decision, and 
by a majority of whose votes the decision must be made, as 
the only and constitutional mode of adjustment. 

“ I will go, then, and endeavor to adjust these difficulties, 
in the full confidence, as strongly expressed by you, that I 
will be sustained by all your own high authority, with the 
cordial cooperation of all your Cabinet.” 

The instructions to this officer are equally con¬ 
clusive of the fact: 

“ The institutions of Kansas should be established by the 
votes of the people of Kansas, unawed and uninterrupted 
by force and fraud. 

“ When such a constitution shall be submitted to the 
people of the Territory, they must be protected in the exer¬ 
cise of their right to vote for or against the instrument, and 
the fair expression of the popular will must not be interrupt¬ 
ed by fraud or violence.” 

But the letter and instructions, as quoted, are 
proof of a much more important matter than that 
for which I have used them, for they conclusively 


establish that there was then an anxious wish on 
the part of the President that the people of the 
Territory should be fully protected in the exercise 
of their right to vote upon their constitution. I 
repeat his words: “They must be protected in 
! the exercise of their right to vote for or against the 
! instrument.” Not in their right to vote for or 
against a part of the instrument, but the instru¬ 
ment —the whole instrument. 

The Union, the organ of the Administration, of 
the 7th of July last, seems fully to appreciate the 
ground then held by the President, and, in de¬ 
fending that position, gives a most satisfactory 
reason for assuming it. I will read an extract 
from that paper of the date named: 

“ When there is no serious dispute upon the constitution, 
either in the convention or among the people, the power of 
the delegates alone may put it in operation. But such is not 
the case in Kansas. The most violent struggle this country 
ever saw, upon the most important issue which the Consti¬ 
tution is to determine, has been going on there for several 
years, between parties so evenly balanced that both claim 
the majority, and so hostile to one another that numerous 
lives have been lost in the contest. Under these circum¬ 
stances there can be no such thing as ascertaining clearly 
and without doubt, the will of the people in any way except 
by their own direct expression of it at the polls. A consti¬ 
tution not subjected to that test, no matter what it contains, 
will never be acknowledged by its opponents to be anything 
but a fraud.” ***** “We do most 
devoutly believe that unless the constitution of Kansas be 
submitted to a direct vote of the people, the unhappy con¬ 
troversy which has heretofore raged in that Territory will 
be prolonged for an indefinite time to come.” 

It is no answer to all this to say that other States 
have been admitted into the Union without sub¬ 
mitting their constitutions to a popular vote. It 
would not be an answer if such had been the case 
with each and every one of the eighteen admitted 
States. If there were a thousand precedent cases 
of States so admitted, where there was no serious 
dispute among the citizens as to the particular 
form of their institutions, they would fall short of 
affording an argument for the admission of one 
where such difficulty does exist. Kansas is a case 
standing by itself; it has no parallels; it is not to 
be illustrated by precedent. Its feature are pecu¬ 
liar—anomalous; and the circumstances surround¬ 
ing it such as never before surrounded the in¬ 
choate State. To it popular sovereignty most 
specially applies. Congress, the dominant polit¬ 
ical party, the President of the United States, the 
Governor of the Territory, all declared the people 
should have just such republican institutions as 
they might desire. All locked to a vote of the 
people as the means to determine the popular will. 
The people now ask that such vote may indicate 
their wishes. All sovereignty resides in the peo¬ 
ple, and no admitted principle refuses its exercise 
in the mode desired. Why shall they not, then, 
speak at the polls? 

Here I pause for a moment. In looking back 
from the point now reached, we see the Dem¬ 
ocratic party and the President have alike pur¬ 
sued a comparatively new, yet well-defined and 
strongly-marked policy. The Missouri compro¬ 
mise line, after continuing for years, is found to 
be too restrictive; the common territory of the 
nation should be open to the occupancy of our 
citizens in common. The Nebraska-Kansas bill 
is enacted, and the people of the Territories are to 
“/onn” as they are to “regulate” their “domestic 
institutions.” In the North and in the South 
the doctrine is accepted, and eagerly they push 












||||RY|F CONGRESS 

0 028 070 907 4 


forward tlieir respective schemes for colonizing 
Kansas, for now numbers shall control the insti¬ 
tutions there. By river and by land the emigra¬ 
tion hastens forward, and the cabin is scarcely 
prepared for shelter before the struggle for power, 
for control, commenc , and it is grasped and held 
by the friends of the South. It is alleged that 
strangers to the soil, Missouri borderers, decide 
the contest: the reply is, you shall not inquire as 
to that, or any other matter; the people rule. The 
hasty and surperficial observer declares the South 
has gained an undue advantage over the North, 
and a sound of exultation is heard around us and 
in the distance. Thus baffled in the Territories, 
will the North, aspiring to executive power, still 
adhere to that sovereignty which has failed her? 
She must do so, or abandon her long-cherished 
object. The pledge is presented to her; she 
accepts it boldly, and repeats to the world what 
the faint-hearted believe is to degrade her free-born 
and undaunted sons: 

We recognize the right of the people of all the Terr*' 1 
ries, including Kansas and Nebraska, acting through .re 
legally and fairly expressed will of the majority of actual 
residents; and whenever the number of tlieir inhabitants 
justifies it, to form a constitution, with or without domestic 
slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of per¬ 
fect equality with the other States.” 

There is a hand-to-hand encounter. Now, 
again, the cry, as one of victory, resounds through¬ 
out the land, “ the will of the majority, legally 
and fairly expressed, shall be the law of the Ter¬ 
ritories.” It is barely uttered before an attempt 
is made to stifle it; for in the far Northwest the 
South has been outcolonized, and slavery is likely 
to be excluded from the soil. We were not pre- 

ared for this; for if the act of a minority, or, at 

est, a doubtful majority, can, for the time, es¬ 
tablish a domestic institution, an actual majority 
should be able to form and regulate and perpet¬ 
uate other or all domestic institutions. 

The Democratic party and the President were 
honest in their support of popular sovereignty. 
This was not only the case before, but after the 
election. On no other hypothesis can you account 
for their early,distinct,and repeated avowals of it. 
The President intended to enforce it in Kansas 
literally and truly. There had never been but one 
interpretation given to it by the party of which he 
was, the head, and he understood it clearly. It 
was, that the fundamental law, the constitution, 
which gave form and regulation to their institu¬ 
tions, all their institutions, should not be imposed 
upon the people until sanctioned and adopted by 
a vote of the majority. If such was not the case, 
hotov came it that the President did not at once re¬ 
pudiate the action of Governor Walker in giving 
assurance that the Lecompton convention must 
submit their constitution to a vote, or it would be 
rejected by Congress ? How could he pass over 
this sentence, in the address of that officer to the 
people of the Territory, without notice ? 

“ Kansas never can be brought into the Union, with or 
without slavery, except by a previous solemn decision, 
fully, freely, and fairly made by a majority of her people, in 
voting for or against the adoption of the State constitution.” 

It. must be conceded that the President approved 
of Governor Walker’s course,and that itrequired 
him to do so to make his own course consistent, 
and the party true to their avowals, 
t I here leave the discussion. I am unwilling to 


I repeat points raised in the earlier portion of ray 
! remarks, to assist this branch of my argument, and 
I do not think it necessary to do so. I can only 
use this general expression, that, in my opinion, 
the course now recommended to us by the Presi¬ 
dent in his message is unjust to, because incon¬ 
sistent with, himself, and would, if carried cut, rob 
the Nebraska-Kansas act of its vital principle, and 
stand as an accusing record against the good faith 
of the Democratic party, crippling it or years to 
come, if not destroying it for the future. In such 
an event, where is that strong hand which is to 
lay hold of the rudder and still direct the ship of 
State, freighted with the hopes of mankind, in her 
course of material greatness and increasing glory ? 
What, in that day, will constitute the breakwater 
against which fanaticism shall dash in its wild fury 
as the hurricane may bear it from the North or the 
South ? How will then fare the Union, with which 
we are everything, without which we are nothing ? 

Do you believe you can satisfy the country of 
the propriety of planting slavery on that soil, 
from which the Missouri compromise excluded it, 
upon the newest doctrine that it should be left 
to the lav/s of climate and production alone, and 
that neither of these will exclude it? that popu¬ 
lar sovereignty, applied by the legislation of 1854 
to the rule of the Territories of the United States, 
maybe trampled underfoot upon the pretense that 
forms of law have been duly observed in estab¬ 
lishing it? that popular elections may be carried 
under solemn guarantees to the voter, and all 
pledges be broken the moment they have per¬ 
formed their work ? that the principal may in¬ 
struct the agent, and the agent, by faithfully obey¬ 
ing the instructions given, shall render himself 
obnoxious to the just indignation of his supe¬ 
rior? that that Territory is self-governed whose 
highest law is made and riveted upon it by a con¬ 
vention in whose composition one half the Terri¬ 
tory was unrepresented and disfranchised, which 
was ordained by a Legislature never acknowl¬ 
edged because never elected ? in short, that all is 
well, and that principle and faith are inviolably 
kept in Kansas, when they know that nine tenths 
of her citizens, acting together, are unable to pre¬ 
vent the adoption of institutions which they never 
can acknowledge without tfisgrace ? 

Do you believe you can satisfy the country of 
all this? I tell you here to-day plainly that the 
northern Democracy never will be able to satisfy 
northern men of these things. Unlike the ancient 
knight, those who support this strange policy will 
be known, although they may change the color 
of their armor at every charge they make here¬ 
after. The time has come at last, and not too 
soon, when a new requisition will be made by 
northern constituencies—an earnest and manly 
defense of northern honor and of northern rights, 
whilst giving the utmost demands of justice to 
their brethren of the South. If unpardonable to 
insist upon so much equality, then we have 
reached the end of national platforms, and the 
beginningof sectional Presidents—to my mind the 
last calamity to be survived; for then will begin 
those acts of aggressive interference which, lead¬ 
ing to protracted and desolating wars, must end 
in establishing among children of the same blood 
the cruel relation of conqueror and captive. 




Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. 




















